Thursday, May 13, 2010
How Shall We Communicate?
I read the reading/movie review for this week by Roger Ebert for the movie "Children of a Lesser God," before I sat down and watched the movie. Since I read the review first, I made it apparent to pay attention to the things that Ebert mentioned in the review, to see if I too noticed what he was talking about and how I felt about it.
I do have to agree with Roger Ebert on this one, it would have been nice if part of the movie was put into the perspective of the character Sarah (Marlee Matlin). There were only two little scenes in the whole movie that went without actual actor's making the sound, and there was very music being played, which was hardly audible, and those two scenes were when Sarah was swimming naked. I do have to say that this did make me a little aggravated, and I did have to role my eyes, because I felt that the only two scenes where they actually (sort of) put the audience in her inaudible world is when she is swimming around naked in a very sensual way. Why not the scene when she is watching James' (William Hurt) class perform at the school talent show? I felt that I would have been able to relate better, and understand her point of view better in that scene if it did in fact alternate from sound to no sound. I felt that this would have truly helped the audience, or at least myself, sympathize with Sarah more in the scene. Even perhaps the scene when she is at the poker table with everyone. I felt that that would have been a good scene as well, since she looked confused about what was going on. James also felt so inclined to take credit for her being who she is as a person. James did not teach her how to play poker, he even admits it; yet, when Dr. Franklin (Philip Bosco) congratulates him on the fine job he is doing with Sarah, which to me is nothing because he is not teaching her anything, he takes the credit and says thank you. But this scene also lead me to believe that she could to some degree understand a little bit of lip reading, hence the confused, unsure look on her face. At least that is the impression that I got.
I also have to add that because those are the only two scenes in the whole movie that are without major sound, it really displays Sarah as a physical object. Really? The only way they could get the audience to relate to her character and experience her silent world was to show her swimming nude? To experience being deaf I guess we all just have to swim around naked. A ha! In fact, I can recall that there is indeed a scene after Sarah leaves James, where he is emerged in the water, naked. Who knows maybe he is half-naked. You really can't tell because they did not objectify James as a sex object like they did with Sarah. So he is in the water trying to emerge himself in her world of silence: he is trying to see what it is like being deaf. Like I said, swimming in water naked is key to knowing what being deaf is like!
In Roger Ebert's review he states that "the true subject of this movie... is communication between two people who speak differently." He outlined well in the review how the character of James is really set on trying to get Sarah to learn how to pronounce words/speak as well as read lips. Why? Well, to make speaking to Sarah more convenient for him obviously. This really bothered me in the movie the way he just assumed she could read lips. The part that bothered me the most was when she got up to get more tea or coffee, and he asked her to get him some more as well, but realized that she could not hear him. He seemed almost annoyed, which was what bothered me. I understand that being in any sort of relationship, whether it is with friends, family, partner, etc.. it is all about communication, so I can see why maybe the annoyance on his part. He wants to feel special too, and have her meet him half way. However, he needed to realize that he has the ability to be able to communicate with her in any way he chooses. She does not have that luxury. I feel as if he wants her to be more "normal" in getting her talk and read lips. If she were blind would he force her to try and see? If she were in a wheelchair and unable to walk would he try and convince her that she may be able to walk if she just try hard enough? I don't think so. So why should he force her to try and communicate in a convenient way for him?
All this communication talk leads me to my last point of the movie, and that is sexual communication. Besides the fact that there was a lot of sexuality in the movie, I felt that it was put in there because these two were both too stubborn to really take the time to communicate in any other way. During one scene, they start to get into a fight, and instead of working it out and communicating audibly/visually, they battled it out on the floor communicating sexually. Which the audience can see that it did nothing to solve their problem. I just truly felt that every scene had to lead to, talk about, and show sex in some way. He hardly even knows her, and they start talking about her sex life. I believe they even get into a little argument about it. Which also helps me prove my point that sex is the main issue for both of them. Honestly, you are trying really hard to get to know someone and you really can only bring up and talk about their sex life? That's a good relationship with strong communication.
I also felt that he was more supportive and understanding of his students then he was of Sarah. That is one positive thing about this movie though, is his support and acceptance of his students. I just wish he was more like that with Sarah, and showed his communication with her in a non-sexual way. To sum it up, I thought that the movie was mediocre. I was hoping that it was a more positive movie for people with hearing impairments, and a more positive movie for people to see about people who have hearing impairments. If they did put the audience in her silent world and cut out some of the sound in the movie, it would have probably have been more effective. I also didn't like how, as Ebert puts it, Sarah is a "stubborn object," which I agree with, because instead of making the audience reach out to Sarah and understand her, her stubbornness makes the audience side with James. I mean really lady, how hard is it for you to learn to read lips?
It really just shows how he is not accepting of her disability, which can make the audience feel the same way. It teaches people that people who are deaf should be able to learn how to communicate with the "TAB", instead of the other way around. I also feel that if the roles were reversed and James' character were deaf, Sarah would bend over backwards to communicate with James through signing. She would not have ever tried to force him to speak or read lips. She may have encouraged him, but once he showed that he only wanted to sign, she would have accepted it.
Like I said, the movie was mediocre, and not as positive as I would have hoped. I feel like the movie, "The Family Stone," did a better job showing how a family, and people in relationships with deaf people learn to communicate with them in a loving, positive, accepting way that makes the audience see that it is not that hard or challenging/aggravating to truly communicate by signing.
All Images Courtesy of Google Images
Movie Clip Courtesy of YouTube
Labels:
communication,
deafness,
disability,
Ebert,
normal,
object,
sexuality,
sign language,
TAB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your blog and I totally agree with your opinion, especially the part, "his communication with her in non-sexual way." While I was watching this movie, I was sad when Sarah met her mother. I am not sure about it because my poor English, but I think I heard her mother said to her that "Your father thought you as a failure." Did I hear correctly, or not? If I heard correctly, I believe this dialogue symbolize as "Society's common belief" and it is very bad. I think you wrote your opinion about this movie in a very brilliant way. (By the way, did I hear correctly?)
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion Danielle. There is an overlap here of male dominance and ableism that you capture in your discussion. I also like the way you weave in a discussion of sexuality, and how the movie treats Sarah and James differently in terms of their sexuality/objectification.
ReplyDeleteI think James was good with his students in many ways. He kept returning to the one student who wouldn't talk and giving him another chance. But as with Sarah, that student's perspective was never shown. Why wouldn't he speak, and is there any positive value in that choice? The pitfalls of lip reading were never shown...I could go on!
I also think the students' performance would have been a great choice for a scene to show in silence, or even with a rhythmic throb that would have illustrated how deaf people feel musical vibrations.
Finally Sook, yes, I believe you heard right. I think the mothers says essentially what you wrote, and then says that she now thinks Sarah's father was wrong.